Letter to John Kerry, Secretary of State, and Steve Linick, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of State - Protecting Whistleblowers

Letter

Dear Secretary Kerry and Inspector General Linick:

According to the State Department's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report, "[t]hose who patronize the commercial sex industry form a demand which traffickers seek to satisfy." Last month, 180 victims' advocacy groups and organizations emphasized that "[t]he elimination of sex trafficking is fundamentally linked to targeting the demand for commercial sex. Any effort to prevent sex trafficking must focus on the sex buyers and facilitators." We are writing to express concerns that the Department may not be taking adequate steps to prevent its own employees from buying sex and thereby contributing to the demand for the human sex trade.

On February 25, 2015, the Washington Post reported that a high-ranking State Department official was arrested after allegedly soliciting a juvenile for sex. Additionally, an October 2014 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report found that aides to the Secretary of State contributed to an "appearance of undue influence and favoritism" in three departmental investigations, including one into allegations that the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium had solicited a prostitute in a public park. Also, in April 2014, Newsweek reported whistleblowers' allegations that the U.S. Consul General in Naples, Italy "turned the diplomatic post into his personal bordello" from 2010 to 2013. According to the article, whistleblowers alleged that the Consul General routinely had prostitutes come up to his room in the consulate, through "a side door and an elevator that required "secure pass codes.'" The whistleblowers further alleged that they suffered reprisal when they reported this behavior to the Department.

These incidents follow a June 2013 CBS News report revealing an internal OIG memorandum that found that members of the former Secretary of State's Diplomatic Security detail "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries," and that this problem was "endemic." The 2013 OIG memorandum reportedly alleged that a Department official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals, and that a U.S. Ambassador "routinely ditched . . . his protective security detail [to] solicit sexual favors from prostitutes." This ambassador was allegedly allowed to return to his post. Department officials allegedly attempted to influence or prevent the Inspector General from conducting these investigations.

Other whistleblowers who claim that they too were punished for making these and related disclosures to the Department and to the OIG have contacted Senator Grassley. These whistleblowers allege that the OIG -- then headed by a different Inspector General -- forwarded their disclosures to the subjects of those very allegations. One whistleblower provided a copy of a 2011 e-mail in which the OIG informed the whistleblower that "persons in Rome" were reviewing the whistleblower's allegations. The whistleblower has also provided documentation showing that the OIG attempted to recall this e-mail -- twice -- after it was sent to the whistleblower, apparently by mistake. The whistleblowers also claim that they made these disclosures to the office of then-Senator Kerry, but that his office stopped communicating with them once the Senator became Secretary. The whistleblowers further note that at the time, then-Senator Kerry's former brother-in-law, David Thorne, was Ambassador to Italy.

Most disturbingly, the whistleblowers assert that individuals have filed five complaints against the former Consul General in Naples with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel; four with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and numerous reports of misconduct with the OIG; the Secretary's Office of Civil Rights; the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; and Diplomatic Security. Still, this official not only remains employed at the Department, but also obtained a position with access to sensitive information in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, according to whistleblowers.

In 2012, the State Department issued a cable on human trafficking, which provides as follows:

It is the position of the U.S. government that the procurement of commercial sex can fuel the demand for sex trafficking. Women, children, and men are trafficked into the commercial sex trade regardless of whether prostitution is legal or criminalized in a country, and thus, the procurement of commercial sex runs the risk of facilitating or supporting human trafficking . . . . [A] victim of sex trafficking may not appear to be under duress, given that coercion and threats of violence are often used to hold people in servitude . . . . Further, assumptions based on appearances as to whether or not an individual is 18 years old are frequently erroneous, as many brothel managers and pimps dress minors to look older . . . . In addition . . . involvement with the commercial sex industry is unacceptable in light of the diplomatic and foreign policy goals of the United States . . . .

Given the gravity of these concerns, the Department must insist that its own employees steer well clear of contributing to the demand for these heinous crimes. Yet, according to that same Department cable:

Foreign Service personnel who engage in [the solicitation of prostitution] may be subject to disciplinary action. Penalties range from admonishment, reprimand, suspension, to separation from the Department, depending on the circumstances.

The Department clearly lacks a zero-tolerance policy requiring the dismissal of employees who engage in the solicitation of prostitution. We understand that current Department policy instructs employees to refrain from "in any way abet[ting] sex trafficking or solicit[ing] people in prostitution, irrespective of whether prostitution is legal in the host country." Without a sufficiently serious penalty attached to this prohibition, however, the current policy does not adequately safeguard the human rights and policy goals in question.

Because State Department employees represent the United States both at home and abroad, they must uphold the values and ideals in which we strongly believe. Indeed, their judgment and actions reflect upon our nation. As the State Department noted in 2005, "[s]imply put, we must dry up the "market' for victims if we are serious about ending human trafficking." Adopting a zero-tolerance policy with respect to its own employees who engage in the solicitation of prostitution is a necessary first step.

Accordingly, please provide a response to the following by April 6, 2015:

1. Secretary Kerry:
a. The 180 victims' advocacy groups and organizations referenced above and copied on this letter have urged us to "target the culture of impunity for those who seek to purchase sex, especially with children." Have you considered adopting a zero-tolerance policy that requires the dismissal of any Department employee who is determined to have engaged in the solicitation of prostitution, without exception? Have you considered adopting a policy whereby all personnel under Chief of Mission authority, regardless of employing agency, are curtailed from post if they engage in the solicitation of prostitution, without exception? If not, please explain and provide an example involving circumstances that would justify the continued employment of such an employee.
b. What legal barriers and restrictions, if any, are currently in place that would prevent the State Department from adopting an effective zero tolerance policy?
c. What additional authority, if any, do you need from Congress to ensure that Department employees are expeditiously terminated for engaging in the solicitation of prostitution?
d. How does the Department ensure that its contractors and their employees steer well clear of engaging in the solicitation of prostitution, which "form[s] a demand which traffickers seek to satisfy?"

2. Inspector General Linick:
a. Since the TIP Report was first published on July 12, 2001:
i. How many allegations has your office received concerning the solicitation of prostitution by State Department employees?
ii. How many of these allegations did your office investigate?
iii. How many of those allegations have not been substantiated?
iv. How many of those allegations have been substantiated?
v. How many State Department employees were allowed to continue their employment despite a substantiated finding that the employee had engaged in the solicitation of prostitution?
vi. Has the Department ever sought to impede or influence these investigations in any way, including resisting production of requested records, instructing your office to refrain from investigating, or revising the reporting on the results of those investigations? If so, please provide a detailed description of each instance without disclosing personally identifiable information.
b. Will you interview the whistleblowers who contacted Senator Grassley's staff concerning the Naples, Italy allegations referenced above?

Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions and sub-questions. Please contact Jay Lim of Senator Grassley's staff at (202) 224-5225 should you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation in this important matter.